The assault on this couple's religion is also combined with the using slanders such as homosexualism and who knows what else, probably that they donate to the BOY SCOUTS. THE CENTER OF LEFTIST FUNDAMENTALISM IS INTOLERANCE.

Nice analysis.

The threat of excommunication for not following the beliefs of the Church while in public office was first raised against a Democrat, John Kennedy. Bishops were then eager not to kill his chance to be the first Catholic president.

It arose again against John Kerry, but this time some bishops said any Catholic politician who was not anti-abortion was excommunicated.

It seems legitimate to wonder if Roberts himself would face a need to vote like the Church would on the Court or be excommunicated.

It's certainly worth examining in a society which still embraces the separation of church and state rather than risk a Sharia state.

The Catholic bishops themselves put this on the table.

Frankly, the idea of a Supreme Court justice being the puppet of any religion is abhorrent.

Broadly speaking, I agree, Luke. The problem, I suspect, will arise in how we each define "religion" for this discussion — whether as an organizational body or as an ideology.

It's an interesting bind that anti-Christians (hereafter "liberals" for convenience's sake) have religious conservatives in. On the one hand, they object to the extra-legal influence that the Church and its beliefs might have on judicial rulings; on the other, they reject (explicitly or disingenuously) the notion that the judiciary is restricted to enforcing the law as written.

So, yes, I would find "abhorrent" if the Catholic bishops (or any religious or cultural leaders) were to become the de facto judiciary of the United States of America. Unfortunately, I suspect that you don't see much validity in the organization/ideology distinction. Furthermore, arguments such as yours imply that you won't accept appeals to either a legalist view of judges' role or the difference between judges and politicians.

The notion of government to which I subscribe is that legislatures ought to engage in the subjective activity of making the laws, with citizens (whether religious leaders or otherwise) free to use whatever means of influence they have — the vote being primary — to encourage legislators to work toward the type of society in which those citizens would like to live. Meanwhile, the judiciary ought merely to determine how that subjective law applies objectively to disputed situations. In such a role, a judge's religion has no relevance, and religious leaders would be incorrect (within a reasonably sane society) to leverage their influence as a political force in that branch.

Liberals, however, have no problem with the judiciary's engaging in the subjective activity of making the laws... as long as it rules according to their ideology. So, if we're using "Sharia state" as a general term for "non-democratic rule according to an ideology" (because you wouldn't want to be so despicably bigoted against a particular non-Islamic religion, would you?), then the liberal's approach to the judiciary is really just a question of what form of Sharia the judges ought to impose.

The threat of excommunication for not following the beliefs of the Church while in public office was first raised against a Democrat, John Kennedy.

Really? Evidence, please.

Bishops were then eager not to kill his chance to be the first Catholic president.

It arose again against John Kerry, but this time some bishops said any Catholic politician who was not anti-abortion was excommunicated.

That is simply false.

It seems legitimate to wonder if Roberts himself would face a need to vote like the Church would on the Court or be excommunicated.

It does? To whom? You?

It's certainly worth examining in a society which still embraces the separation of church and state rather than risk a Sharia state.

A rather clumsy attempt at a smear, that.

The Catholic bishops themselves put this on the table.

Baloney. Hypocrites mouthing one thing in the pews and another on the podium did that.

Frankly, the idea of a Supreme Court justice being the puppet of any religion is abhorrent.

I agree. Including the religion of secular humanism.